The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Principles of Estoppel in challenging a counter claim after submission to a previous decree.

JUDGMENT :

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)

1. The present plaintiffs/appellants have preferred a suit being Civil Suit No. 77 of 2002, “Maharaj Singh and another vs. State of Uttarakhand and others”.

2. In the suit thus preferred by the present plaintiffs/appellants, he has prayed for the following reliefs:

^^13- ;g fd oknhx.k U;k;ky; Jheku th ls izkFkhZ gS fd&
v- ;g fd izfroknhx.k] muds vf/kdkjhx.k] deZpkjhx.k o muds izfrfu/kh;ksa dks vknsf'kr djrs gq,s fcØh LFkkbZ fu'ks/kkKk ckgd oknhx.k f[kykQ izfroknhx.k bl vej dh lkfnj Qjek;h tkos fd izfroknhx.k] oknhx.k tks fd iz'uxr lEifRr ij cgSfl;r dkfct gS] muds 'kkUrh iw.kZ dCts esa fdlh izdkj dk gLrk{ksi o rksM QksM ;k {kfrxzLr djus ls ges'kk ds fy;s ckt jgsA
c- ;g fd ?kks'k.kkRed fMØh ckgd oknhx.k f[kykQ izfroknhx.k bl vej dh lkfnj Qjek;h tkos fd dfFkr 'kklukns'k la0 vkbZ0ch0,p0 139@71 fnukad 7&3&72 drbZ 'kwU; o fu"izHkkoh gSA
l- [kpkZ eqdnek oknhx.k dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA
n- vU; vuqrks"k tks ckgdoknhx.k gks] oknhx.k dks fnyk;s tkosA^^

3. The suit thus instituted on 24.07.2002, at the behest of the present plaintiffs/appellants, they had claimed for a decree of grant of permanent injunction, as against the employees of the defendant/respondent nos. 1 to 6. The private respondent-Pandit Purnanand Shiksha Samiti was impleaded as defendant no. 7 by virtue of an amendment made on 27.07.2006. In the suit thus instituted by the plaintiffs/appellants, i.e. Suit No. 77 of 2002, what would be more important is the relief which was sought, that is by way of relief, be a declaration in relation to the property which was detailed at the foot of the plaint as given in Schedule ‘A’, and further to the effect that a declaration was sought qua government order 1379/71 dated 07.03.1972.

4. On the issuance of the notices in the suit in question, the defendant/respondent no. 1 had filed a written statement on 30.08.2005, wherein, while denying the plaint allegations, he has invoked provisions contained under Order 8 Rule 6 (A) praying for a grant of the following decree:

^^29- ;g fd izfroknh tokcnsfgUnk bl dkmUVj Dyse ds tfj;s fuEu vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS%&
¼v½ ;g fd fMØh csn[kyh bl vk'k; dh lknj Qjek nh tk;s fd izfroknhx.k iz'uxr Hkwfe tks fd izfrokn ds layXud&2 esa iznf'kZr gS [kkyh Hkwfe---- dk dCtk oknhx.k dks lkSai nsaA ,slk u djus ij izfroknhx.k dks tfj;s vnkyr oknhx.k dks csn[ky dj dCtk fnyk fn;k tk;sA
¼c½ ;g fd [kpkZ eqdn~nek fnyk;k tk;sA
¼l½ ;g fd vU; tks vuqrks"k mi;qDr gks izfroknhx.k ls oknh dks fnyk;k tk;sA^^

5. With respect to the counter claims which are filed under Order 8 Rule 6(A), it goes without saying that it has to be decided as an independent suit, and it will constitute as to be a decree on its own, as per the provisions contained under Order 8 Rule 6A(4).

6. Being aggrieved against the judgment and decree, as it was rendered by the learned Trial Court, whereby, the plaintiffs’/appellants’ suit for the grant of declaration and a decree of permanent injunction, was dismissed and the counter claim preferred by defendant/respondent no. 7, who was later on impleaded in relation to Khasra No. 363kha having an area of 0.016 hectare and Khasra No. 364 having an area of 0.387 hectare, total 0.403 hectare of village Amritpur, Tehsil Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, was decreed consequential for the eviction of the plaintiffs.

7. It is an admitted case that as of today, as against the dismissal of suit, for the grant of decree of permanent injunction and declaration, has already been dismissed, as against which no Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants as against the dismissal of the First Appeal. In fact, whatsoever the wisdom prevailed with the plaintiffs/appellants, they have preferred the Second Appeal confining his relief by putting a challenge to a decree in relation to the decreeing of the counter claim.

8. The challenge to the counter claim has been attempted to be made by the plaintiffs/appellants preferring the Second Appeal by formulation of followi